Che70velle

iTrader: (6)

Not true. We had a hand in building a BBC for a street rod in the early 90’s that made 996 on pump 93. It had a 871 roots on it. Total show build that was purple.
I have a friend in Gainesville Ga, that I bought my Chevelle parts car from when I was building mine. He’s got a naturally aspirated BBC in a ‘70 Chevelle that makes right at 1000 on pump 93, and over 1100 on E85. With cubic inches, 1k is easy. GM just released a crate BBC that’s over 1k hp, but it might need more than pump 93? Not sure about that one…
But I get what your saying. E85 makes all this easier. The stuff is pretty much alcohol.

StorminMatt

It all depends on what you mean by ‘needed’. Actually, CARB approval REQUIRES that you don’t have to tune your ECU. This is similar in concept to the way that, for instance, a CARB approved header requires that you don’t have to relocate your cats. Simply put, CARB approval requires that the part allows the car to be in compliance emissions-wise while running the stock emission configuration. And in the case of the FSL cam, it is close enough to stock that it shouldn’t affect emissions much (if at all) without a tune. Of course, there’s also the possibility of a specific tune for a specific cam being approved. Not sure if CARB would allow this.

Now getting a tune would certainly OPTIMIZE even a cam as mild as the FSL. This is especially true if you are running other mods. The issue here is that there are rumors that California is of will soon be checking for tuned ECUs during emission testing. If this is true AND you want to run a tuned ECU, it would be necessary to swap back to a stock ECU for inspection. Also, it would be necessary to run a cam (or other parts) that would allow you to pass with a stock tune. The Comp FSL appears to be such a cam, although there may be others (possibly bigger) that could fit the bill as well. Unfortunately, there doesn’t seem to be much in the way of info (here or elsewhere) regarding which cams will and will not pass on a stock tune.

rednari2

iTrader: (1)

Do you realize what an emergency is? A plane cannot, repeat, cannot land with full wing fills of fuel. Any time a flight is aborted or cut short say. and rerouted to another airport, fuel must be jettisoned. The fuel must be burned off as in normal flight time or jettisoned before landing. And you will be surprised how often that happens.

G Atsma

StorminMatt- True, the FSL cam is a very mild upgrade for the LS3/L99, BUT it is also approved for the 5.3L engines, which usually come with either 191/190 114LSA cam or a 196/201 116LSA cam, both of which are much smaller by comparison. The FSL cam in these will be far off base compared to the stock cams. YET there is a company here in Cali (West Coast Engines) that sells a 5.3 crate engine with that cam that claims to do 400HP/390#/ft on 91 octane. 50 state smog legal too.

StorminMatt

The 5.3 cams are further from the FSL cams. But not that much further. Remember that an LS2 cam is just 204/213 116LSA. In reality, they’re all pretty close. Especially when you consider that, these days, something in the neighborhood of 230/230 112LSA is considered to be a ‘mild’ cam.

G Atsma

I totally get this, BUT, how "far" can a bigger cam be before it exceeds the "capabilities" of the stock cam tune? How much can the MAF and O2 sensors "cover its ***" before things are really out of whack?
Hey, maybe there is more leeway than many of us think, which would be really cool.

Darth_V8r

iTrader: (4)

The real problem is false lean due to overlap. Sensors start adding fuel. Causes CO to increase. If you keep overlap low, you can get away with a lot.

G Atsma

And you just revealed why the Comp FSL cam gets a pass- wider than normal LSA (118 deg.). This is why I don't think I would use the BTR Truck Torque cam. Its 111 LSA "only" allows a -20 deg. overlap, compared to -23.5 for the Summit Torkinator or -28 for the Cam Motion 4.8 Stage 2 truck cam.
I guess now the question is- How much (or little..) LSA can one get away with and keep the tune happy?

68Formula

I had a loose intake hose, which caused enough MAF correction that it set a MIL (I was watching it in real time). IIRC it was when it reached 10%, that it set the code.

G Atsma

The break was between the MAF and TB, I assume.
But yeah, 10% is actually a fair amount of leeway.

Che70velle

iTrader: (6)

The ironic thing here that is relevant in this discussion, is that tuning on an fuel injected car can actually help the vehicle produce less emissions and promote fuel mileage, both being goals set by California EPA laws, yet they allow no tuning now whatsoever. Mods or no mods.

68Formula

The most overlap of those that are approved for a 5.3L is 210/222 @ .050" 116 (264/274 advertised). So that would imply a -16 OL @ .050". But I at that RPM, I think you have to also consider the OL @ advertised.

Interesting, comparing OL both points for their largest GENIV and GENIIIs approved for 5.3Ls...

646-201-13/689-201-13 (210/222 116) - 1 bolt
OL @ .050: -16
OL @ .006: 37

54-103-11 (210/118 118) - 3 bolt
OL @ .050: -22
OL @ .006: 34

BTR V2 Truck Torque (202/202 111)
OL @ .050: -20
OL @ .006: 30

BTR V2 Truck Stage 1 (206/212 112)
OL @ .050: -15
OL @ .006: 35

Summit Torkinator (200/205 113)
OL @ .050: -23.5
OL @ .006: 31.5

So the BTR Truck Torque would probably still work, but their Stage 1 might be pushing it. Torkinator looks pretty safe. Of course, since no tuning is allowed those could only be used for applications without AFM or VVT.

StorminMatt

Since this is a Gen III forum, there are a couple of things worth mentioning about the 210/222 FSL cam. First of all, since this cam is a single bolt cam, there is a VERY high likelihood that it was never designed for Gen III engines. Like factory Gen IV cams, it may not have the reluctor for the cam sensor in the rear. This could be a problem running the cam in a Gen III motor. It may be necessary to switch to a cam sensor in the front cover. And I’m not sure if this is compatible with Gen III ECU’s.

Another possibility is that this cam is designed more around rectangular port heads. Or, at the very least, the better flowing 243 heads (which were the only cathedral port heads used on Gen IV engines). Compared to the three bolt cam, it has the same intake duration, but with less lift. Exhaust duration is greater, but with the same lift. This suggests a cam designed around a head where exhaust flow is the bottleneck rather than intake flow (like rectangular port heads, or possibly even 243’s). On the other hand, with greater lift and the same duration, the three bolt cam seems to be designed to make better use of a cathedral port head’s smaller intake valve and lower intake port flow. Because of this, this cam may not pass with stock cathedral port heads and a stock cathedral port tune. If this is true, swapping to 243 heads could potentially help.